DMOZ Supports Child Porn?

I presume you're referring to the Resource Zone? I'm beginning to wonder if he's really even an editor - he's sounding more and more like a simple troll to me.

AC, this is not cbp - and cbp isn't from Canada. He's from New Zealand, I think, or else Australia.

 

It's him, ask Crazy Rob to do an IP check versus Birdie!

 

The posting style is all wrong for cbp. And cbp, whatever you may think of him, is a lot brighter than this Obfuscator clown.

The oither thing I'd point out, Anthony, is that we are assisting Obfuscator in his goal here, which is to smokescreen and distract from the issues we're trying to address in this thread. I suggest we ignore the puerile little troll and get back to the issue of illegal and multiple listings in DMOZ adult categories. Let's not let Obfuscator bury the important issues in several pages of trash talk.

 

Back to the issue -

Can someone tell me if the editor responsible for the listings in the Pedophile Chat Rooms cat is still an editor? Not asking for names just status. It is not uncommon on this forum for editors to tell questioners if an editor responsible for something has been removed so it clearly isn't against guidelines to release that information. I've asked the question twice before and it hasn't been answered, which gives me the impression there is someone still mixing with other editors who took the time and trouble to create the category and list those sites. That thought I find more disturbing than the existence of the actual category.

 

Take my word for it, CBP is not smart at all....

Do the IP check and prove me wrong.......

He should be banned, both user names if I am correct Minstrel.....

 

Someone inside the inner sanctum must be hindering progress on correcting the problem, so I wonder the same thing. Who stands to lose by removing those sites? Identify that person and you identify the problem (or at least one of them).

 

Unfortunately the issues were lost in the noise about 600 posts ago. But, that's always the case at DP.

Any time someone DOES try to address the issues, the triumverate ignore it or come back with schoolyard insults.

Yes, some of those "affirmative" sites need to be reviewed I guess. But for people to turn around and accuse the ODP of being a pedophile ring just demonstrates people's REAL agenda. The ODP is anti-censorship, but sites that are illegal should not be listed. Are the sites illegal or not? It's a good question - on the face of it, they just appear to have "uncomfortable" content.

Multiple listings of the same domain in Adult are normal for that category. Basically, the galleries are structured to that a visitor can easily find the material that interests them. This sometimes means that a site is deeplinked several times. As I already pointed out with the cherryboys.com site, this probably amounts to no real traffic boost at all (with a reach-per-million of 0.25 for that site). And those links have been added by many, many editors. Sure, DPers can't see the edit logs, but they can check the Alexa stats.. unfortunately, this information does not fit in with their agenda. Yes, perhaps this is something the ODP can look at. No, it's not a real issue.

As I said before, some claims are utterly ridiculous. To say that the Adult section is going to be stumbled across by children is plainly not the case. It has been there since 1998, and it turns out that most people who posted in this thread had absolutely no idea that it existed. In fact, the ODP has a Kids & Teens category with carefully reviewed child-friendly sites that meet very strict criteria. But again, the facts don't fit in with the agenda.

Posters accuse ODP editors of corruption, and yet in some cases admit that they have tried to abuse the ODP's guidelines to get listed. "Corruption" of course simply means that they're pissed because the ODP hasn't listed one of their sites.

So, remove the paranoid fantasies and abuse from the triumverate and there are some fair points for debate. But really, this isn't a forum for debate, it's a forum some people to try to get back at the ODP for "other issues".

 

It's all our fault CBP

 

Can we get back to the REAL topic, please?

 

I can't think of anything anyone inside could possibly lose, certainly not at a high level. In the past the argument in favour of leaving sites that cause grave offence, e.g. those in support of abortion, has been that the sites are not illegal and DMOZ should not censor. And up to a point that is the right approach IMO. There is a line and anything that in any way promotes a view of children as sexual objects is over that line IMO, regardless of legalities. Nevertheless I am aware that a few US editors have very strong anti-censorship views irrespective of their personal feelings on the subject matter. They have principles and that could be respected except IMO if those principles in any way aid or assist child molestors then those principles are dangerously misplaced. Persuading such people they must compromise their principles as the majority have completely opposing principles is one thing but if no-one budges then someone with the authority has to make the call and they can't afford to leave it much longer.

 

That is the real topic. Perhaps you should re-read the thread. It's OK, we'll wait. If any of the concepts are too difficult, then just ask.

 

The topic at this point is frauds like you that will not identify themselves CBP/Birdie/Defraudinator....

 

Yes. The principle of law is very clear on that point - freedom of speech ends when the right to freedom of speech infringes on the basic rights of or otherwise causes injury to another person. An example is hate literature - I don't know US law well enough to comment but that prinicple is well established in Canadian law.

 

Holy crap, Homer! Run for your life! We're outnumbered by DMOZ editors 5 to 2!

 

The person that added the sites isn't an editor anymore.

 

Assuming that you actually are an editor, Brizzie, then you can determine that for yourself.

Remember though that most categories are edited by several editors.

 

No, it isn't. The topic of this thread relates to alleged child pornography sites in the Adult section of the ODP. You just don't get it do you? You just want to push your own agenda all the time.

 

OK CBP, are you an editor in the adult section

 

Jesus H Christ...this thread has turned into a sh*t slinging match with very little purpose.

Brizzy, nice observation about Wikipedia. So what your saying is that this material CAN actually be removed from a directory. It's too bad the ODP doesn't see it that way. Free speech, censorship or whatever is being used to justify this crap still remaining live is just beyond me .


Interesting note: I Also noticed that Google's Adsensebot doesn't support this either. This thread and the other one Brizzie pointed out display NO ads when we get on this topic, My point...even a god damn bot knows the right thing to do .

 

Yes, some of those "affirmative" sites need to be reviewed I guess. But for people to turn around and accuse the ODP of being a pedophile ring just demonstrates people's REAL agenda. The ODP is anti-censorship, but sites that are illegal should not be listed. Are the sites illegal or not? It's a good question - on the face of it, they just appear to have "uncomfortable" content.
No, they don't need to be reviewed, they need to be removed. It isn't about legality or illegality, it is about right and wrong. And what the editor community is prepared to tolerate. A small minority of editors might take the anti-censorship line to the extremes but in blocking the removals on that principle they risk every editor who has opposing principles voting with the resignation button. And every parent of an underage editor withdrawing their permission for that editor to edit.

In the same category? You know and I know that a large number of editors, probably a large majority of editors oppose this definition of "normal". It may not indicate corruption amongst existing editors but the galleries have been subject of numerous editor removals for corruption and their handywork is still evident in many categories. So it is a real issue.

Posters accuse ODP editors of corruption
And sometimes they hit the nail on the head. Gworld, king of trolls and chief conspiracy theorist, identified a load of sites he reckoned were evidence of corruption. When checked, the majority of editors involved in the listing of his evidential sites had been removed for corruption. He was about 80% right. Because the mess isn't cleaned up, and the mess includes guidelines that are so unclear even most editors can't tell what is abusive editing in Adult, it gives an impression of more widespread corruption. I know that is a conclusion that is complete nonsense only because I have been on the inside but without that it sure looks compelling. So DMOZ only has itself to blame for people coming to the wrong conclusion and it is the only one that can put that right. But it doesn't because it dismisses the complaints as the rantings of spammers with a grudge with no validity.